On the McDonald's Corporation's Web site, both Taiwan and Hong Kong are identified as a country, while China is missing. Many other corporations -- including Audi, Mercedes-Benz, GM and Siemens -- list Taiwan as a country. This is just a simple situation that tallies with business operations. But Chinese media believe that Taiwan cannot be taken as a "country," since this word refers to an independent nation with its own sovereignty.
With Chinese nationalism, it's hard to know whether to laugh or despair. For example, consumers worldwide are familiar with products labeled "Made in Taiwan" (MIT). MIT products represent good quality and cheap prices, especially IT products. However, if labeled "Made in China," the quality they represent may be much lower.
It's a given that Taiwan, Hong Kong and China are all official members of the WTO. In the situation in today's global market, China's actions against Taiwan's sovereignty go against most people's understanding, because they are unnecessary and appalling.
Not only has China's rigid and inflexible policy oppressed Taiwan, but it has also squeezed Hong Kong. After its handover in 1997, the territory's political independence it used to enjoy under the British disappeared, and its control over its own economic and trade affairs shrank. This has destroyed the Hong Kong people's confidence in Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems."
No wonder, despite numerous disagreements, the ruling and opposition camps in Taiwan are united in their rejection of "one country, two systems." As far as politics is concerned, the world cannot differentiate between the Republic of China (ROC) and the People's Republic of China (PRC). When it comes to China and Taiwan, it is acknowledged that these are countries ruled by two different governments. On Wednesday, 47 Democratic Party members of the Japanese Diet convened a conference to voice support for Taiwan's democratization and liberalization. They agreed to facilitate a visit to Japan by former president Lee Teng-hui (
President Chen Shui-bian (
If the two sides of the Taiwan Strait wish to maintain peace and stability, they should delineate the boundaries of the battlefield but not engage in total war. Clearly separating politics and economics and allowing mutual exchanges in the private sector to remain untrammeled by the issue of sovereignty is probably the most surefire model. If everything gets tied up in a Web of nationalism, then neither side of the strait will be able to act.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS